Gun Control

Gun Control Background Informaton

On December 14, a mentally crazed man named Adam Lanza shot and killed twenty children and six adults at Sandy Hook Ele-
mentary School in Newtown, CT. This shootng re-sparked the natonal gun control discussion.
There have been three other mass shootngs in the last yearThe shootng in an Aurora, CO theater, with 12 dead and 58
injured; a shootng at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin with 6 shot; and a shootng in a Portland, OR mall killing 2 before his gun
jammed. Many of the artcles allude to these shootngs.
Overall, there are 32,000 deaths by frearms and 11,000 gun homicides. Two-thirds of gun deaths are due to suicide, and of
the 11,000 the majority is related to gang violence. Mass shootngs do not represent a large porton of gun deaths.
There are about 270,000,000 or almost 9 guns for every 10 people in the United States. Over 40% of households have guns. By
far, we have the most guns per capita in the world. Here is a graphic:


Source: FactCheck.org

Overall violent crime is going down, yet gun suicides and non-fatal injuries are going up. However, gun ownership and manu-
facturing are going up while gun murders and aggravated assault are going down. The correlaton between guns and death is
hard to defne, and there is disagreement among scholars.
President Obama recently introduced 23 executve orders strengthening existng gun laws. For example, it launches pro-
grams promotng gun safety, reviewing safety standards, trace lost, stolen, and illegal guns, nominates an Alcohol, Firearms,
and Tobacco director, etc. It also lifs a virtually 17-year ban on the CDC stopping it from studying the efects of guns in mur-
ders as well as linking media such as video games to gun violence. For more informaton, visit the last two sources.
The Obama administraton has also proposed an assault weapons ban, background checks on all gun sales, limitng magazines
to 10 rounds, and more.

Sources:
htp://www.justacts.com/guncontrol.asp#ownership
htp://www.gunpolicy.org/frearms/region/united-states
htp://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
htp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
htp://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sectons/A_Politcs/_Today_Stories_Teases/Gun-Violence-Reducton-Executve-Actons.pdf
htp://nbcpolitcs.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16544842-obama-unveils-sweeping-new-gun-control-proposals?lite
Guns are Dangerous Toys (PRO)
Tyler Pichete
On a personal level, I do not believe firearms
are necessary for the wellbeing of our citizens in the
United States of America. From my point of view, I
see guns as dangerous toys that are used in nearly eve-
ry homicide in our country. Nevertheless, my will is
not the will of the people, and I dont believe any form
of gun control more stringent than Vice-President
Bidens request to President Obama is feasible consid-
ering the current state of our nation. The issue is that
guns are ingrained in our society and regardless of the
outcries from those in favor of gun control, any legis-
lation more extreme would be feckless, and met with
an uproar, and supposedly a revolution.

One argument I hear over and over again is
that Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Well
whoever came up
with that, I would
first like to congratu-
late you for coming
to the earth-shaking
conclusion that peo-
ple kill people. How-
ever, if you honestly
believe that guns
dont kill people,
than you should seri-
ously reconsider
your position. As-
sault rifles are mili-
tary grade weapons
built to kill. On the
same day as the
Newport school shooting, a similar event occurred in
China. A deranged man entered a school, and attacked
22 children with a knife. Interestingly enough,
while the students were obviously injured, there were
no fatalities. Obviously people are humans of emotion
and the tiniest event can lead them to snap, but the on-
ly conclusion I can come to is that while people do kill
people, assault weapons or firearms in general are not
only the weapon of choice, but also the most efficient
choice.

Another point raised by those against gun con-
trol is that regardless of laws criminals will still get
their hands on firearms, why take away law abiding
citizens ability to defend themselves? My initial gut
reaction is look at the statistics people. Gun control
has been incredibly effective in European countries
and Japan where gun related homicides are virtually
non-existent. All countries have criminals, yet gun re-
lated homicides are a fraction of what they are in these
countries compared to in the U.S. Alex Jones contin-
ued to bring up the violent crime rate being up in Eng-
land, and I would argue that while I would never want
to be held or mugged at knife point, I would certainly
be less intimidated than if the criminal had an M23
held to my head. Unfortunately, after analyzing this
further, I remembered we live in the United States,
that we have a different breed of people, and a com-
pletely different outlook on life than in Europe and
Japan. I feel that its very possible that American
criminals would continue to get guns, and that fright-
ens me.

Essentially, I see many fal-
lacies in the arguments pre-
sented by those in opposi-
tion to gun control, I dont
like guns, I dont see the
purpose, I sleep fine at
night knowing that my fam-
ily doesnt own a firearm
for protection, but my
beliefs shouldnt dictate the
direction of this country.
The issue itself is reminis-
cent of prohibition in the
1920s, because guns (like
alcohol) are rooted so deep
into our cultural, even law
abiding citizens will inevi-
tably break laws and our Government will undoubted-
ly be forced to foot the bill. At the end of the day,
there are more important issues we should be focusing
on, but since when has that ever dictated the focus of
our citizens or our legislators?
Source: Neils Noordhoek
Guns Do Kill People (PRO)
Muru Palaniappan
When the 2
nd
amendment was passed in 1791,
it was meant for people to keep a free state. To over-
throw the government if it does not meet the needs of
the people, just like we drove the British from the US.
Lets fast forward to the 21st century. Gone are
the days of the Wild, Wild West. The US has estab-
lished itself as a technology based forward thinking
country with many laws protecting a free market driv-
en society. People can move freely without having to
worry about militia. Granted terrorism is a new form
of attack on society that is being dealt with intelli-
gence, espionage, and foreign military intervention.
Technology and communication is of para-
mount importance to society. Almost everyone uses
computers and live in a peaceful society. People are
engaged in a variety of entertainment activities such as
shooting ranges, wild life shooting, and for general
protection.
Guns dont kill, people do. This is a famous
adage from the NRA. While that statement is true, a
more pragmatic statement may be People dont kill,
guns encourage them to do so. In most countries
around the world, the general population does not bear
arms. You almost never hear about mass murders.
While murders can never be eradicated anywhere,
mass carnage does not happen unless people have ac-
cess to guns, particularly assault rifles and high capac-
ity magazines.
Here are some of the reasons I hear about why
people want to own guns: a) I grew up in an area
where most people had arms b) I grew up in a rural
area, where I had to protect against wild animals and
thugs c) I feel better knowing that I have a weapon to
protect myself. While these are good reasons, do they
really promote a safer society?
We no longer fight conventional wars. We fear
the nuclear threat and bombs. We fear terrorism and
complain about terrorist who own arms. Arming
teachers in schools are not going to make school chil-
dren any safer. Arming movie theater owners are not
going to make movie goers any safer. Arming pastors
are not going to make the congregation any safer.
In my opinion, guns should be allowed only at
specific place like gun ranges and hunting grounds.
These are the types of places where the weapons are
intended to be used; they do not belong in places like
movie theaters, businesses, or parks.
In the 21
st
century, we have adopted to change
in technology and living style, why dont we give up
our weapons and live in a peaceful society. I realize it
will take a period of time before guns are reduced
from society. Give peace a chance. If the violence
does not abate say in a few decades, we can always go
back to owning weapons for protection.
Arming Schools (CON)
Benjamin Janicki
Afer every mass shootng there is a cry for re-
form, and with good reason. To do nothing is unac-
ceptable. There have been too many of these
shootngs for us to not take acton. However, of all
the policy proposals brought forth since the Sandy
Hook Elementary shootng, only one holds any prom-
ise of preventng these shootngs in the future: arm-
ing our schools.
Ant-gun actvists point to countries like England
and Japan as examples where fewer guns have result-
ed in less gun violence. Clearly, the rates of gun vio-
lence would decrease if guns were completely elimi-
nated from America, as they are in Japan, and almost
are in England. But this would require a mass confs-
caton efort that would be unconsttutonal and
lengthy. There are 300 million guns in America, and
we cannot eliminate them in any tmely fashion.
In 1976 Washington DC passed an outright ban
against private citzens owning guns within city limits,
even in their own homes. Gun violence in DC doubled
in the following decade, with annual homicides rising
from 188 in 1976, to 369 in 1988. By 1994, the num-
ber was 453. Criminals had grown bold with the
knowledge that no civilians or homes would be
armed.
In 2007, the Supreme Court struck down the DC
gun ban in the landmark case DC vs Heller. The court
ruled that the Consttuton guarantees an individual
right to keep and bear arms. Since the courts deci-
sion and repeal of the law, gun violence in DC has de-
creased, to 88 murders in 2012, the lowest number
since the law was enacted.
Most ant-gun actvists do not openly propose gun
-confscaton eforts, but simply outlawing certain
kinds of guns will do nothing to prevent the next
shootng. While we need to ensure that the mentally
ill cannot buy weapons, these laws are already on the
books along with background checks. The killer in
Sandy Hook was already barred from buying guns, but
he stole them. Beter background checks should be
implemented, but they stll cannot prevent a killer
from accessing guns by thef.
Since 1950, only one mass shootng, defned as
the shootng of three or more people, has occurred
outside a gun-free zone. Gun-free zones atract these
killers, and they avoid places where they think people
might be armed. When the police fnally show up to
these shootngs, the killers usually commit suicide
before any gunfre breaks out. They arent looking for
a fght; they simply want an easy place to rack up a
kill list before they die.
A gun-free zone that isnt protected by armed
guards only creates an illusion of safety. City halls
and airports are gun-free zones, but both have crucial
elements missing from schools: security checkpoints,
and armed guards.
Greater gun control does not guarantee a preven-
ton of mass shootngs. Norway has some of the
toughest gun control laws, but in 2011 sufered one
of the worst shootngs in history, where a gunman
killed 77 people. Once again, the areas he targeted
were gun-free zones, and many of his victms were
children.
It took 20 minutes for police to arrive at Sandy
Hook Elementary afer the frst 911 calls. If there had
been a single armed employee at that school, the
tragedy would have been much shorter or nonexist-
ent.
I am not advocatng for hiring police ofcers for
every school in America, nor am I suggestng that teachers should be required to perform this task. I am
simply recommending that we make it possible for teachers or other school staf to carry guns if they choose
to do so. Many schools already have armed guards to protect their students, but it is currently illegal for
school staf to carry guns on school property.
When my dad was a kid he raised sheep, and it was his lifelong dream to grow his fock and own a sheep
ranch. However, on a yearly basis, several neighborhood dogs would gang up and massacre his fock. Ofen,
by the tme he fnally shot or chased the dogs away, less than half of his fock would be lef. Many that re-
mained were maimed, and he would spend the next month applying bandages and cleaning maggots out of
their wounds.
He did everything he could to prevent further atacks. He had the culprit dogs euthanized and educated
his neighbors about containing their dogs at night. He built beter fences and watched the felds closely, but
stll could never prevent the next massacre. He developed a deep hatred of dogs, which grew into an obses-
sion.
A few years ago, I recommended to my dad that we get some livestock guardian dogs to protect our
fock. Although he resisted strongly, my brothers and I won him over. We bought two Great Pyrenees pup-
pies, and within a few months our losses came to a screeching halt.
The ant-gun lobby has grown to hate guns with good reason. Like my dad, they are reluctant to realize
that the only viable soluton to the problem is the very thing they loathe most. My dad has now grown to
love our dogs because they protect our sheep. Just as my dad couldnt eliminate every dog from his neigh-
borhood, the government cannot eliminate every gun in America.
In his last year in ofce, President Bill Clinton proposed an expansion of the Cops in Schools program.
Today, nearly one third of the natons schools already have armed guards. Why are his politcal allies critciz-
ing this same idea now?
Politcians claim that they want to prevent a tragedy like Sandy Hook from ever happening again. Of all
the proposals brought forth following the Sandy Hook Elementary shootng, only one is capable of fulflling
that promise.
Im Sick and Tired of Mass Shootngs (PRO)
Iman Baghai
It is Saturday morning and I am on a pleasant stroll
with a friend until she receives a text that says: "Play
practice is canceled, school in lockdown, gunman on the
loose, stay away from downtown Issaquah." She turns to
me, scared for her friends, while I am bewildered by the
fact that my peaceful hometown has turned into what
feels and sounds like a two-block warzone. I am not
afraid of guns. My school is adjacent to a shooting
range; I leave school hearing gun shots. When I run the
trails afterschool, I run to the music of shooting. And
now with another school shooting, this time in Maryland,
something must be done. I am sick and tired of mass
shootings, shootings in general, and the wrong people
getting powerful guns too easily.
Beyond the facts and the deaths -- U.S. homicide
rates are almost seven times higher than 22 other first-
world nations combined, and our firearm homicide rate
is almost 20 times higher -- is the psychological fear that
guns and shootings create. For
several weeks after the shooting
near my school, my friends and I
would cringe and jump in the
parking lot after school upon
hearing the constant gun shots.
Not only that, but every time I
hear of any kind of shooting, for
weeks I become fearful that my
school will be the location of the
next Perry Hall shooting or Col-
umbine. I can only imagine the
fear that the people in the Sikh
community of Wisconsin must
deal with every day now.
I acknowledge that guns in
the hands of citizens have saved numerous lives and
stopped countless crimes, but the majority of these en-
counters involved hand guns, not AK-47's or the Smith
& Wesson AR-15 rifle that can shoot 60 rounds a minute
-- the gun that helped James Holmes massacre an Aurora
movie theatre. We can protect our Second Amendment
rights by continuing to allow the purchase of hand guns
and hunting rifles, but please, let's curb the sales of these
assault rifles and semi-automatic guns. There are several
ways we can do this.
First, we instigate more background checks on peo-
ple acquiring guns and regulate or ban the sale of ex-
tremely powerful and "semi-automatic," although they
seem like automatic, rifles. This should come at the cost
of the gun buyer. Second, and more importantly, there
needs to be an increase in regulating the second-hand
gun market. This could occur with having gun market
shows register with the state or having gun owners up-
date their licenses regularly so that the government can
track owners who suddenly have missing guns and fine
penalties for not registering the sale with them. This in-
dustry makes it easy for criminals to get their hands on
dangerous weapons without any background checks.
These checks could prevent many crooks and mentally
unstable people from acquiring weapons.
To those who argue that guns are our constitutional
right, well, they are right -- it is. But let's clarify some
things first. The amendment was for people to be able to
protect themselves from foreign threats, which was very
much possible at a time when our nation was both weak
militarily and vulnerable to another invasion from Brit-
ain. Furthermore, our society back then was significantly
more disconnected -- they didn't have planes or high-
ways. Muskets gave them a way to protect themselves
and they were also incapable of
causing mass murder. However,
nowadays we have by far the most
powerful military in the world and
a very connected nation. The
chances of foreign invasion com-
ing to your door without a block-
ade of military personal to make
sure they never touch you is prac-
tically zero. So, if you say it is a
pastime to own AK-47's, I am
more than certain George Wash-
ington will raise his eyebrows at
you.
In a time when our murder rate is
at its lowest in 50 years, we are
still behind the rest of the world. Statistically, I should
feel safe, but I don't. I don't feel safe because criminals
can easily get high-powered weapons and come to our
places of worship, Jewish centers, cafes, movie theatres,
schools, political events and many other places with the
intent to kill.
In America, we value our safety and security, but I
know I don't feel safe with these weapons being bought
so easily and I'm sure I am not the only one who feels
this way. So, can we all restore the value of security by
regulating powerful guns and their ammunition. Let us
enjoy America with one less thing to worry about. And
in the future I hope that the gunshots I hear every day
will be from the gun-range by my school and not from
the street in front of it.
The Folly of Gun Control
Toby Calvert-Lee
In the wake of the monstrosity of the Newton, Connect-
icut shooting, there have been an increasing number of
calls for stricter gun legislation. While nearly all public
polling shows that those who push for greater gun control
are in the minority, they are clearly a growing minority, a
loud minority, and a minority with increasing political in-
fluence. All Americans who are concerned about violent
crime should be troubled by this minority and its growing
popularity.
Those pushing for stricter gun laws have an incred-
ible amount of passion and emotion behind their argument.
What they lack is a large amount of logic. This passionate
minority turns a blind eye to the failures of drug and alco-
hol prohibition, and argue that we ought to try to apply the
same tactics to guns. Never mind that when both drugs and
alcohol were banned, people continued to acquire these
substances, regardless of their illegal status. It is impossible
that this will happen with guns, they say. They ignore the
sound and logical reasoning that the only people who will
be disarmed by this gun prohibition will be the innocents
who could have defended themselves. It is foolhardy to
think that criminals will abide by the rules this time, and
that they will cease to purchase guns on the black market.
Criminals, by definition, have no reticence about breaking
the law, and this will be no exception. Just as criminals
avoided drug and alcohol prohibition, they will avoid any
gun prohibition. Unlike the drug and alcohol bans, howev-
er, this time, innocents will be disarmed and left defense-
less against those who wish to do them harm. Imagine if
women did not have the option to defend against sexual
assault. Imagine if fathers did not have the option of de-
fending his children against a violent intruder. And image
if black Americans in the era before civil rights did not
have the option of defending themselves against the KKK.
Many in this minority claim that they are only be-
ing reasonable. They may have a point; at least, they would
if they chose to support only background checks on gun
owners and bans on the mentally insane owning firearms.
Background checks are already widely supported, but these
laws may need modernizing so as to assure we can prevent
the criminals and mentally unstable individuals from pur-
chasing guns at gun shows and in other circumstances
which do not require background checks. While these
checks will likely not prevent all criminals from purchasing
guns, it would limit ease of access without disarming inno-
cent Americans. But any discussion of these widely agreed
upon measures is inevitably accompanied by a ban on
assault weapons. The prohibition of assault weapons will
have unintended consequences; it will disarm innocent ci-
vilians and leave them defenseless while doing little to pre-
vent violent crime. The question we must ask this minority
is: why can we, the innocent civilians, not be allowed to
carry the same weapons as those who wish us harm? Why
must we give the advantage to those who have no problem
with breaking the law, and will do so again?
There may be certain steps that we can take to limit
gun violence. Some may take the form of modernized
background checks, although I am doubtful that this would
satisfy the vocal minority or seriously reduce crime. We
could push for more lenient concealed carry laws, ensuring
The City Folk Are Right (PRO)
James Norris
Recently, as we all know, killings have occurred in the
United States which has sparked President Obama to
begin signing legislation that pertains to guns. As I
am from Eastern Washington, many of my friends
have spoken to me about how angry they are at hear-
ing this. At the same time, friends of mine in Seattle
are expressing surprise at how long it took the Presi-
dent to send a bill to congress. This difference in
opinion is precisely what makes it difficult to make a
correct decision regarding gun control laws.

I grew up in a stereotypical small town that loved its
classic American items: pie, Jesus, and high-powered
rifles. Firearms are ingrained into the cultures of
many small towns, hence the severe opposition to any
attempts at controlling gun ownership. My graduat-
ing class had twenty students and half of them had at
least one firearm in their vehicle at all times. In Seat-
tle, this would cause an uproar, but where I am from,
it is common for students to go hunting immediately
before or after school and merely forget that they had
their gun. That being said, it is no wonder that many
rural citizens feel that their second amendment rights
are being infringed upon whenever gun control laws
are enacted. Consider the outrage that would ensue if
legislators were attempting to outlaw coffee and es-
presso in Seattle because of how many people it burns
each year. To Seattle residents, not only would it
seem unjust, but it would seem downright silly. Well,
to many people that live in rural areas, guns are as
harmless as coffee. Of course, the occasional accident
occurs, but with the proper education, most of those
accidents are avoidable.

On the other hand, it is understandable why people
from Seattle see guns as a threat, rather than a mode of
sustenance or recreation. In light of recent events, I
have to agree with the city folk in saying that guns are
causing too much harm than good. And even though
my stance is that we should constrict our hold on fire-
arms, I am more worried by the fact that we should
need to enact gun control laws.

Sorry, fellow Eastern Washingtonians, although I can
do my best to represent your thoughts, I cannot agree
with them.

that each civilian has the choice to defend themselves, so long as they are mentally stable. The U.S. could institute armed
guards in schools, along with ending the policy of gun free zones, in which nearly every major shooting has occurred
over the past decade. We could also examine our mental health treatment. Above all though, it is important to remember
that no government rule or regulation can ban hate and evil. What we can be assured of, however, is that disarming inno-
cent Americans will not make us safer.
The Second Amendment (CON)
Scot Corbit
In the wake of any mass shooting, proponents of gun
control understandably use the event as justification of
their political aim of banning or restricting guns. Such
action, however, is based on an emotional response
rather than a proper logical policy analysis. Because of
the warranted disgust the public has with these mass
killings by crazed or malicious individuals, they fail to
remember that guns used lawfully significantly reduce
crime, and political oppression often occurs in a dis-
armed populace, while rarely in an armed one.
Gun control advocates cite incidents like the
recent shooting in Connecticut as their primary reason
for gun restrictions beyond current regulation. Howev-
er, when creating law, one should judge it by the like-
ly effect, not by the intended one. In Connecticut, the
shooters weapon already complied with the ban on
assault weapons there, underscoring that any weap-
ons ban will either be unenforceable, or will leave oth-
er dangerous weapons out for sale. Even if guns were
banned completely, it would be impossible to gather
all the weapons currently in possession of American
citizens - a people who have a larger number of guns
per capita than any other country. Criminals could
then access guns through the current black market,
while law-abiding citizens would have limited access
to defensive weapons. Furthermore, the empirics op-
pose a ban: violent crime (and all crime) in nations
such as the UK that have implemented bans has in-
creased since the ban, while the US has enjoyed a
steadily decreasing rate of crime without a ban. De-
struction of the tools used for both crime and self-
defense does no good when the underlying problems
are not solved. Gun control will not reduce violent
crime in this country.
Even more important in the long term, posses-
sion of guns ensures freedom. Those who believe in a
serious restriction of guns generally believe that we
have little to fear from our own republican govern-
ment. However, historically, all republics turn into
dictatorships no republic is older than the tiny San
Marino or the US and often even republics abuse
their own people if the people are defenseless. History
teaches us that the military should never be more pow-
erful than the armed populace; in 150 BC, Rome was
republican yet within eighty years, the military gen-
erals instituted mass political purges against the de-
fenseless people. Even our own government has been
guilty, in the Japanese Internment and Southern Re-
demption. Thomas Jefferson said, Those who ham-
mer their guns into plowshares, will plow for those
who do not. Safeguards for freedom need be in the
law, but an armed people must enforce them.
More than just restricting government, guns
used in the hands of a loyal citizenry frequently stops
criminals and mobs. During the 1992 LA riots, busi-
nesses protected themselves against mob force with
guns as the police fled the mob. In this case, as in oth-
ers, honest, gun-wielding people wielded tremendous,
stabilizing power. Indeed, up to two million crimes are
stopped each year by gun-wielding citizens. As police
simply cannot timely respond to every crime, ordinary
citizens must be able to act as the first responders.
Increased police action against gun crime and
gun access restrictions for mental health are reasona-
ble when implemented by the appropriate powers.
However, gun control is often inefficacious and dan-
gerous to the community and national liberty through
further regulation of competent gun owners. The right
of competent, stable people of self-defense, guaran-
teed by the Second Amendment, should be protected.
Source: justfacts.org
Reason in the Gun Control Debate (PRO)
Karthik Palaniappan
The frst thing we need in any debate, but espe-
cially in a debate as heated as gun control is reason.
We have the highest per capita frearms rate with
a staggering 88 guns per 100 people along with
33,000 gun-related deaths (which are mostly suicides
and gang violence). We do have a problem, and it
does need to be addressed. Simply threatening im-
peachment (Rep Stockman of Texas) or claiming
1776 will commence again if you try to take our fre-
arms (Alex Jones) does nothing to further the con-
versaton.
Look: there are no liberals who propose banning
and confscatng all the guns. We recognize that a pis-
tol can be useful in self-defense. However, there are
common-sense regulatons we can have on guns
without infringing on the second amendment.
Jon Stewart made a good point here: we cannot
ban cars to prevent car-related deaths, but we can
create drinking ages, blood alcohol limits, ensure a
degree of crash-safety, require seat-belts, etc. Simi-
larly with guns, we cannot ban guns, and we are nev-
er going to get rid of violence. But we can insttute
universal background checks for getng weapons
currently, you can buy guns from gun shows or from
private individuals without a criminal background
check.
We can limit assault weapons and magazines over
10 rounds solely to gun rangesyou can buy and
shoot all the assault weapons you want for fun, but
we do not need these mass-killing machines out in
society.
But lets be clear, the problem is guns, not violent
video games nor violent movies. Our Canadian friends
watch the same movies and play the same video
games, but they do not see nearly the number of gun
deaths a year.
Nor is it mental health. Other western natons
have similar rates of mental illness too. The only
cause of gun violence is guns, especially the sheer
number of guns we see in America.
One argument I must debunk is that the only
way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a
gun. In additon, the NRA wants to arm teachers
throughout the country to protect students.
Just imagine if you knew your teachers were
armed. Imagine the learning environment. Now, im-
agine the same for elementary school kids. Its a scary
thought.
Even worse, look at the Aurora, CO shootng. The
shooter had an assault rife along with a bullet-proof
vest. The good guy with a gun could not have done
much, especially considering how dark the theater
was. The shooter was able to fre 70 rounds a minute.
Now imagine if he only had a pistol and had to reload
every 10 shots (the magazine cap).
Obviously most gun owners can and do handle
their guns. Yes, we can see that guns can work in self-
defense. But the rest of the
world is laughing at our
stubborn refusal to consid-
er gun regulatons. They
laugh that we pretend we
need guns to stop the rise
of imaginary Hitler. The
laws we pass are a refec-
ton of who we are as a so-
ciety. As fun as the movies
are, we are not the Wild
West with vigilante justce.
We cannot just shoot each
other (or commit suicide)
to solve our problems. We
do not need to go back to the 19
th
century, regardless
of how badass it is that the Vice President shot and
killed the former Treasury Secretary in 1804.
These regulatons will prevent criminals from
mowing down civilians while protectng the second
amendment for every day civilians. Gun owners and
gun control advocates need to sit down calmly and
discuss solutons that both sides will supportlets
start with closing the gun show loophole since it has
Contribute to the Discussion!
We can communicate and discuss current
events literally at the speed of light. Lets
put it to good usewe do not need to be a
passive public.

For more information, go to http://
thenationaldiscussion.blogspot.com to see
all of our articles, author bios, and more!

If you want to get involved or contribute
an article, contact us at nationaldiscus-
sion@gmail.com